query_entities

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains return format ('JSON array of matching entities') and parameter behaviors (limit range, default). However, it does not disclose error handling, authentication requirements, or behavior for invalid entity types, leaving gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with sections (Args, Returns, Examples) and is mostly concise. Each sentence adds value. Minor redundancy (e.g., 'JSON array' could be implied) but overall efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (5 params, output schema exists), the description covers parameter details, return type, and examples. It could mention valid entity types explicitly, but the output schema may cover that. Overall complete for a query tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains each parameter: entity type with examples, WHERE clause syntax, limit range, fields as comma-separated, and order_by format. Examples further illustrate usage. This adds significant meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Query Bullhorn entities using SQL-like WHERE syntax.' It specifies the resource (Bullhorn entities) and the action (querying with WHERE syntax). Examples further clarify. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_candidate or list_candidates by emphasizing the SQL-like query capability.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for complex filtering via WHERE syntax but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like search_entities or list_* tools. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided. Examples help, but explicit comparison is missing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.